Whomever said we wont know who's better until Ponting retires is correct.
It's weird but it's just, for some weird reason, easier to guage who's greater when they retire. Ponting almost has as many centuries as any man in history, but their quality and impact can't really be seen yet.
I personally think Punter, if he can't regain the Ashes, will be most remembered for losing the Ashes than anything else. Something will define him before he retires so I can't judge him.
One thing I did want to say is that I'm glad I've seen him play on TV a lot over the last year. The reason being is that there's a genralisation that pitches these days are flatter and more batsman friendly... and that's somewhat true. But many of Ponting's centuries have been made in incredibly hard circumstances and anybody saying they haven't is wrong.
The hardest one being at Old Trafford where the ball was seaming and jagging and the bounce was unpredictable. That's the best innings he's ever played, easily. I've seen Lara and Tendulkar at their best and I must say even they would have a hard time doing what Ponting did. Ponting at 99% couldn't do what he did that day. And under the highest of pressure. 3 wickets from 30 overs needed and he faced most of the balls under the most intense pressure. It doesn't get more nerve racking than that, he did amazing.
Then there was a century against South Africa at the SCG, in a game where he made two centuries. The second century was amazing. Low bounce and he played it with such a straight bat. Never once hesitated in going for the win.
Then there's the one in South Africa a few months ago, in that test where he made two centuries. Man that ball was jagging and seaming all over the place. If I recall South Africa were very unlucky not to get more wickets because they nearly found the edge so much. To be fair, Ponting had some luck and was even dropped. But other than that he was just phenominal.
And in a match that somewhat changed my opinion on how I judge teams against Bangladesh, Ponting played a great innings. It wasn't Bangladesh, I still think they suck, it was the pitch. It played beautifully in the first day, but after that is was impossible to judge the bounce. Meaning two things. 1. You had to play with a straight bat because with an unpredictable bounce you had to give yourself as much surface area to hit the ball. 2. You couldn't go for balls off the line of the stumps because you'd have less bat area to hit the ball. But the thing is it's hard hitting the ball off an off-stump line and Rafique was suprisingly relentless in fidning the right line and he plenty of maidens.
So Bangladesh were never going to beat Ponting, Ponting was going to beat himself if he decided to play a bat shot. Again under pressure of Australia's most embarrassing defeat he came through. In fact he only batted three times in Bangladesh. The first time he went out to an unplayable ball that jagged off the seam and kept low. The second time he was undefeated, not out. The third time he was run out. Really Bangladesh has very little chance of beating him... which normally wouldn't say much, had Ponting not played in some bad conditions.
So anybody saying Ponting's purple patch has been made in easy conditions is wrong. They've been on pitches with bad bounces, jagging balls, swing balls (Simon Jones) and just tough going.
People have said the same of Matthew Hayden in the past and argued he's not good on seaming or swinging wickets. He's batted in the same conditions as Ponting and may right now be the second best batsman in the world.
So nobody can really argue that Ponting had it easy. Yet in decades to come they might fall under the impression he had it easy in an era of flat wickets.
